隨著族群基因資料的研究與族群基因資料庫之建置漸受重視，吾等或應思考此些耗費許多資金、人力始建置完成之族群基因資料庫，可否享有著作權之保護？是否應另以特別權制度，予以保護？族群基因資料庫之授權策略與資料近用權間，應如何調適？ 本文以為，族群基因資料庫雖具高利用價值和潛在的商業利益，但常無法滿足著作權法對於原創性的要求；此問題在一九九一年，美國最高法院做成的Feist Publication, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.一案判決後，引發各界的關注，從而有多次美國國會的立法建議，以及歐盟資料庫保護指令之誕生；基此，歐盟於資料庫特別權保護制度，以及美國國會數度提出的資料庫法律保護立法草案中，對重大金錢或其他資源投資下之成果，均認其得為資料庫特別權的保護客體，藉以鼓勵私人投資。 惟自族群基因資料庫之特性而言，其具有基礎研究設施與高度的時效性，若賦予特別權保護或將形成科學研究之藩籬，而有阻礙科學發展的憂慮；此外，從國際間或臺灣未來所欲建置之族群基因資料庫來看，多為接受政府科技計畫補助所建置，資料庫特別權制度所能發揮之「鼓勵私人投資」功能有限，故是否需透過特別權保護，以為私有資金挹注科學的研究提供誘因？值得質疑。是以，吾人應以族群基因資料庫之授權策略、基因資料庫之近用權、研究成果之回饋與利益分享問題為探討，以為臺灣後續立法政策之參酌。

As researches into population genetic data and the construction of population-based genetic databases have gained increasing attention, it is incumbent on us to contemplate whether these expensive, manpower-consuming population-based genetic databases are under the protection of the IPR laws. Should special right mechanism be established to protect the databases? How to adjust between the authorization strategies and the information access right of population-based genetic databases? We think that the considerable use value and potential commercial benefits of the population-based genetic database often do not satisfy the requirements of originality by the IPR laws. This issue has aroused public attention since the 1991 verdict of the Feist Publication, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. case by the Supreme Court of the United States, and has incurred much legislative advice by the American Senate and the naissance of the EU database protection order. Hence, both the EU protective system of the special rights of database and the legislative draft of the database laws proposed for times by the American Senate have recognized the results of massive capital or other investments as the object of protection by the database special rights, in order to encourage private investments. Whereas, as population-based genetic database is characterized by both qualities of basic research infrastructure and high time-effiency, investiture with special protective rights is prone to constitute barriers to scienfic studies and considered liable to obstruct the development of sciences. Besides, since most of the population-based genetic databases under construction by the international communities and Taiwan are government subsidized technological projects, the function of "encouraging private investments" in database by the special right mechanism is constrained. Therefore, the question whether it is necessary to employ special right protection to provide incentive for private investments in scientific studs remains doubtful. Consequently, we should investigate into issues on authorization strtegies of population-based genetic database, access rights of genetic database, and questions of reward and benefit-sharing of research outcomes to provide references for the succeeding legislative policy in Taiwan.